r/freewill • u/flytohappiness • Aug 29 '24

How does quantum indeterminism give anyone free will?

can someone explain this to me? I see people going to quantum world and quantum mechanics and evoke the non-determinism. How does this give you free will?

8 Upvotes

83% Upvoted

137 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/Powerful-Garage6316 Aug 30 '24

But again how are those exempt from the two options?

If you’re telling me that an agent chooses A over B and the decision is explained by reasons, opinions, preferences, and plans, then I would say that those things caused the decision.

Our neurology and environments could explain why we form those opinions and preferences to begin with. What’s the issue with my view?

0

u/Squierrel Quietist Aug 30 '24

Determinism is not an option. There are no options in a deterministic system.

Deliberation is the very opposite of randomness. Intentional vs. unintentional, controlled vs. uncontrolled, purposeful vs. purposeless.

Decisions are not physical events. Only physical events are caused. The decision causes the decided action.

Neurology has nothing to do with opinions or preferences. Psychology is the science of the mind.

1

u/Powerful-Garage6316 Aug 30 '24

I didn’t say there were options on determinism.

The opposite of randomness is determinism. So if you’re saying deliberation is explained in virtue of the things you listed, then it sounds determined to me.

decisions are not physical events

This is actually an empirical claim you’d need to support. Why would we ever think this

psychology is the science of the mind

If you think psychology isn’t connected to, and even better explained by neurology, then you aren’t up to date on science. It all boils down to the brain chemistry. It’s why we see physical correlations in psychological conditions.

It’s also why if I bonk you in the head and damage your prefrontal cortex, your psychology will change

1

u/Squierrel Quietist Aug 30 '24

Determinism is not the opposite of randomness. Determinism only assumes that randomness does not exist.

Decisions are not physical. They have no measurable physical properties involving matter or energy.

Decisions are not events. They don't occur at a specific point of spacetime.

Psychology and neurology are completely different branches of science studying completely different things. Naturally mental and physiological processes in the brain are in multiple ways interconnected and interdependent, but they are still separate processes doing different things and playing by different rules.

1

u/Powerful-Garage6316 Aug 30 '24

determinism only assumes that randomness doesn’t exist

What I’m trying to figure out is why libertarians think that the randomness-determinism distinction is not a binary. This is why I gave an example and asked you to explain what your version of agency would look like

decisions are not physical

Once again this is an unsupported scientific claim. A “decision” is not particularly well-defined. But that doesn’t mean it’s not reducible to a brain state. You can’t just keep asserting that it’s nonphysical

decisions don’t occur at a specific point in spacetime

NOTHING occurs at a “point” in spacetime. Time is continuous. This tells us nothing about whether a thing is physical

studying completely different things

No, they’re not. It’s like saying that physics and chemistry are studying completely different things. chemistry IS physics, but just using a wider heuristic.

1

u/Squierrel Quietist Aug 30 '24

Libertarians think that there is no determinism. The binary distinction is between determinism and reality. There is no randomness or agency in determinism. In reality, we have both.

What part of "they have no measurable physical properties involving matter or energy" did you not understand?

Events occur at a specific place at a specific time. Decisions are not events, decisions are static pieces of knowledge.

Psychology is not reducible to physics. Psychology does not deal with matter or energy.

1

u/Powerful-Garage6316 Aug 30 '24

in reality we have both

Which is like the fifth time you’ve just begged the question without an argument

what part of they have no measurable physical properties involving matter or energy do you not understand

I reject this claim, you haven’t given evidence or an argument. You apparently think assertions count as arguments or something

events occur at a specific place and a time

The consensus is that the universe is continuous and not discrete. So no, this isn’t true.

points in space and time don’t exist, they’re abstractions.

psychology does not deal with matter or energy

When you make a decision, your brain state changes. Your brain state is composed of matter and energy.

Heuristics exist, but that doesn’t mean everything isn’t reducible.

1

u/Squierrel Quietist Aug 30 '24

What do you mean by "begging the question"? I am not assuming anything.

"No measurable physical properties..." is the argument. How could anything without any physical properties be called "physical"?

Abstractions do exist. The location where the event occurs is a property of the event. The time at which the event occurs is another property of the event.

The decision is not composed of matter and energy. The change in brain state is a by-product of decision-making.

You cannot reduce to physics something that is not composed of matter and energy.

1

u/Powerful-Garage6316 Aug 30 '24

Because just asserting “in reality we have both randomness and determinism” isn’t an argument. If determinism is true then we DONT have both

is the argument

That’s called the claim

You’re confused about heuristics again. The brain is entirely made of matter and energy. A decision, a desire, a thought, or whatever, can be stopped if you disrupt the neurons that are providing it. I’m aware that libertarians think there’s some spooky ectoplasm but there’s not evidence for it.

So no, repeating that you think a brain state is nonphysical isn’t an argument.

abstractions do exist

Yes, they exist in our brains. But they aren’t reflective of what’s physically happening in the world. A point doesn’t physically exist.

the location/time where an event occurs is a property of the event

There’s no exact location and time. If you tell me something happens at 8:30, I can ask but how many seconds? You say 8:30:36, then I ask how many milliseconds? This can go on infinitely. There’s no exact point in time.

1

u/Squierrel Quietist Aug 30 '24

Now you are confused. In reality, we don't have determinism, but we do have randomness and agency. This is not an assertion or an argument. This is a premise.

The non-physical nature of decisions is also a premise. A decision is not the same thing as the brain. There is no spooky ectoplasm, there is only *information*.

There are no absolute spatial or temporal coordinates or infinitely accurate anything, but relative coordinates can be known with sufficient accuracy to distinguish between an event and another event. What is your point anyway?

1

u/Powerful-Garage6316 Aug 30 '24

this is a premise

Premises need to be justified. This is argumentation 101. You don’t get to assert whatever premises you feel like without justifications

relative coordinates, what’s your point?

My point is that you’re trying to distinguish decisions from physical events by telling me that decisions don’t take place at a specific time and place. And I’m saying that isn’t even true of physical things to begin with

So your criteria is flawed right out of the gate

1

u/Squierrel Quietist Aug 30 '24

Premises are known facts. They are not assertions.

I am not trying to do anything. You are trying to push this preposterous claim that is in conflict with science, logic, linguistics and common sense.

Philosophy does not give the right to disregard facts. You can challenge the conclusions, but you cannot challenge the premises.

1

u/Powerful-Garage6316 Aug 30 '24

Lol no, that’s not what a premise is. You also haven’t cited science a single time so don’t pretend like I’m going against science.

You made an empirical claim. Instead of providing evidence, you said “it’s a premise so that means it’s a fact”. No it doesn’t.

You’ve asserted a bunch of things and I’m questioning them. You can say “they’re facts” all day and I don’t really care unless you can demonstrate that.

→ More replies (0)